Hi MikeD, on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:01:48 -0500GMT, you wrote:
M2> Have you tried adjusting your 'threshold'? I have been using BayesIt M2> and have not had that problem. I almost never have false positives. My problem with BayesIt were not false positives. There were none. M2> But between 20 and 30% of the spam doesn't get filtered. Over 95% here. :-( M2> Just adjust the threshold up a bit each time you get a false M2> positive and that should solve the problem ... but you will end up M2> letting more spam through. There is already most spam coming through undetected. So, maybe I should lower the threshold instead, risking false positives... hmm M2> But for me, it is less of a problem to deal with the little bit of M2> spam tht gets trhough Alas, that's not a little bit, but almost all of it. M2> than it is to have to deal with a proxy like K9. There is not much to deal with, once installed and set up for the accounts. :shrug: M2> But others feel that K9 (or other proxy) is worth the hassel. M2> YMMV You're right. No hassle at all for me, plus it works. :)) -- Cheers Peter The Bat! v3.61.09 Echo :beta: on Win2K, SP4, 5, 0, build 2195 plenty of POP accounts, no IMAP, OTFE enabled Dell Latitude C600 P3 at 1002 MHz, 512 MB RAM ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.61.09 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
